From: Eric Friedman (ebf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-05 20:27:48
David Abrahams wrote:
> Eric Friedman <efriedman_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>Unfortunately, I don't have any better ideas. Maybe for now I'll just
>>go with variant< variant_types<seq> >, as ugly as I find it.
> I think I'm with Peter Dimov, if I understood him correctly. For
> interoperability reasons, it has to be a metafunction.
What do you mean by 'interoperability reasons'? Regardless of whether
the public interface is a metafunction or not, ultimately the created
type will need to be some form of variant< ... > to retain compatibility
with 'plain' variants. (FYI, this is similar to the approach I use for
the recursive_variant metafunction.)
Sure, that looks nice (for the public interface).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk